Delhi High Court
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Afsar @ Dinesh & Ors on 27 October, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 25th September, 2025
Pronounced on: 27th October, 2025
+ CRL.L.P. 162/2019
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State
with SI Shubham, PS Naraina.
versus
1. AFSAR @ DINESH
S/o Sh. Satpal,
R/o WZ-503, Naraina Village,
New Delhi .....Respondent No.1
2. MOHIT
S/o Sh. Surender Kumar,
R/o WZ-504, Naraina Village,
New Delhi ....Respondent No. 2
3. MONU @ ANIL
S/o Sh. Ramesh,
R/o WZ-504, Naraina Village,
New Delhi ....Respondent No. 3
Through: Mr. VPS Raghav, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Criminal Leave Petition under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner against the
Order/Judgment dated 07.09.2018 of learned ASJ-04, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi. Hence, the Leave to Appeal is sought.
2. For the reasons stated in the Leave Petition and the submissions made,
the same is allowed.
CRL.A................../2025 (to be numbered)
3. Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on
behalf of the Appellant/State against the Order/Judgment dated 07.09.2018
whereby the learned ASJ-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, has
acquitted the Respondents, in the Case FIR No. 52/2014 under Section
308/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
'IPC‟) registered at Police Station Naraina.
4. The Prosecution's Case is that on 16.02.2014, the Complainant, Jai
Singh, was returning from his work at Gurudwara, C Block. When he
reached near Sarvodaya Vidyalaya, Naraina Gas Godown, he was allegedly
intercepted by four known individuals from Valmiki Samaj - Mohit,
Sandeep, Monu, and Afsar - all residents of Naraina Village. They allegedly
stopped him and began to assault him with the intent to snatch his purse,
gold chain, and gold ring. When he resisted, they allegedly hit him on the
head with a stick and a glass bottle, and snatched his chain, ring, and a purse
containing approximately Rs. 5,000/-.
5. The Complainant called the PCR. Meanwhile, Virender, a known
acquaintance, arrived at the scene and was also allegedly struck with a
danda (stick). Both were taken to the hospital, where their MLCs (Medico-
Legal Certificates) were prepared. Due to panic, the Complainant was
unable to give a statement immediately; his formal statement was recorded
the following day, i.e. 17.02.2014.
6. Based on his statement, the FIR was registered, and initial
investigations were undertaken by Head Constable Sukhwant, the
Investigating Officer. During the investigation, Head Constable Sukhwant
noted that the incident appeared to be a quarrel, rather than a case of
snatching. The MLC of the injured was collected. Upon completion of
investigations, the Chargesheet was filed in Court.
7. Charges under Section 308/323/341/34 IPC were framed against all
four accused (the Respondents), to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
8. The Prosecution, to support its case, examined 11 Prosecution
Witnesses.
9. The most material witness was PW-2/Jai Singh, the Complainant,
who testified about the incident and proved his Complaint as Ex.PW-2/A.
The CD of recorded conversations, allegedly containing a threat by the
Respondent, Mohit, to the Complainant, is Ex.PW-2/B.
10. PW-3/Virender Singh, the Complainant's brother, corroborated the
testimony of the Complainant/PW-2.
11. PW-5/Head Constable Sukhwant, prepared the rukka (initial report)
Ex.PW-5/A, on which PW-9/ASI Babu Lal, recorded the FIR, Ex.PW-9/A.
12. PW-6/Dr. Ramesh, S.R. Casualty, DDU Hospital, examined the
injured, Virender, who had been brought to the Casualty by the PCR with an
alleged history of physical assault. On examination, he found a CLW
(Contused Lacerated Wound) over the right lobule of size 1.5 X 0.5 cm
with swelling. He sutured the wound and proved the MLC as Ex.PW-6/A.
13. PW-11/Dr. Nishu Dhawan, Sr. Medical Officer, DDU Hospital,
proved the MLC of the Complainant, Jai Singh, which was prepared by Dr.
Shweta Aggarwal, as Ex.PW-11/A.
14. PW-8/Sanjay Tomar, the final Investigating Officer (IO), prepared
and filed the Chargesheet against the four Respondents in the Court.
15. The incriminating evidence was presented to the Respondents in
their Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which they denied entirely.
They asserted that the Complainant had falsely implicated them purely out
of revenge. They contended that the Complainant had earlier engaged in a
heated argument with one of the Respondents, Mohit and was now seeking
vengeance through this false implication.
16. In their defence, the Respondents presented DW-1/Sh. Pavitra
Mohan Chauhan, who deposed that he had owned a shop dealing in
wooden planks near the scene of the incident in Naraina Village, for 17-18
years. He deposed that he was present at his shop from 09:00 AM to 08:00
PM and recognised the Respondents as he had seen them pass by his shop.
Crucially, he deposed that he did not notice any quarrel involving the
accused persons with any other villager or person in Naraina Village, on the
date of the incident between the hours of 09:00 AM and 08:00 PM.
17. The learned Trial Court considered all the Prosecution evidence and
found material contradictions in the testimony of the Complainant/ PW-2
and the other eyewitness PW-3 concerning the narration of the incident and
the time it took place. Furthermore, the Court found no corroboration
regarding the weapon of offence and contradictions were noted in the MLCs
(Medico-Legal Certificates). It was also concluded that there was a false
allegation of robbery, as revealed during the investigations. Considering the
totality of circumstances, the Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the
Respondents, leading to their acquittal.
18. Aggrieved by this acquittal, the State has filed the present Appeal,
challenging the judgment on the grounds that the learned Trial Court
reached wrong conclusions on the facts and circumstances, which were not
based on the factual matrix. The Court failed to appreciate the principle that
even if there were some lacunas in the investigation, a Prosecution case that
is otherwise proved, should not have been discarded and the benefit given to
the accused. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 fully supported the
Prosecution Case and that no contradictions could be brought out in their
cross-examination. Furthermore, the MLC fully corroborated that PW-2 and
PW-3 received injuries.
19. The State has contended that the Trial Court‟s appreciation of the
MLC, as it wrongly concluded that only the injured/PW-2 provided the
history of assault even though the MLC of both the injured stated the history
of assault. Further, MLC of injured recorded that history of assault was
given by both, the injured and the person who brought him, thereby showing
that the injured was fit for statement to the Police on the same day, was
incorrect. It has also not been appreciated that the accused persons had
threatened the Complainant on the phone during the investigations, which
was recorded in a CD and submitted to the Police by the Complainant.
20. The State contended that it is the settled law that minor contradictions
or lacunas in the statements of witnesses, cannot be held fatal to the
Prosecution‟s case. Ultimately, it is asserted that the oral and documentary
evidence collected during the investigations was not properly appreciated,
and the Respondents were wrongly given the benefit of doubt leading to
their acquittal.
21. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned Judgment be set-aside.
22. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, has argued on
the similar grounds as have been taken in the Appeal.
23. Learned counsel for the Respondents has forcefully argued that the
testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 contains inherent and material contradictions,
specifically regarding the time of the incident, as deposed by them.
Pertinently, the FIR was registered on the day following the alleged incident,
despite the fact that the Complainant was medically fit to give his statement
immediately after the incident. Further, the initial allegations of robbery
levelled against the Respondents were proven to be false during the course
of the investigation itself.
24. The Complaint and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
reflects material improvements, a fact rightly acknowledged by the learned
ASJ.
25. Furthermore, the weapon of offence, specifically, the alleged glass of
broken bottle, has not been recovered. There is no corroborative evidence
supporting the assertion that a „danda' (stick) was used in the alleged
assault. The non-recovery of any alleged weapon of offence, significantly
weakens the Prosecution's case.
26. Finally, the learned ASJ correctly appreciated the testimony of the
defence witness. In light of these contradictions and discrepancies in the
Prosecution‟s case, the respondents have been rightly acquitted. There is no
merit in the Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions Heard and the Record Perused.
27. The foundation of the Prosecution‟s case rests on the testimony of
PW-2, Jai Singh, the Complainant. He deposed that on 16.02.2014, while
returning from C-Block, Godown, and turning near the Sarvodaya Kanya
Bal Vidalaya, he was confronted by the three Respondents and a fourth
person. He identified them as Mohit, Monu, Sonu, and Afsar. According to
PW-2, Mohit, who was holding a glass bottle, asked him as to what he was
carrying, to which the Complainant replied it was a glass bottle. Mohit first
threatened him and then struck him on the head with the bottle, due to
which, he fell. The other three accused persons then allegedly snatched his
gold chain, gold ring, and a purse containing Rs.5,000/-. The Complainant
managed to run from the spot to save himself and on the way, met his
brother, Virender/PW-3.
28. After being informed of the incident, his brother/PW-3 went to the
location where he was also assaulted. The Complainant then called the PCR,
and the Police arrived and took both injured brothers, to Deen Dayal
Hospital. His Statement, Ex.PW-2/A, was recorded the following day,
17.02.2014, which led to the registration of the FIR.
29. The Respondents, in the cross-examination suggest to PW-2 that a
prior altercation had occurred between them and the Complainant, who
admitted that an earlier altercation with Mohit in front of his house, on
12.02.2014.
30. A further suggestion was put in his cross-examination to the
Complainant by the Respondents that about two months prior to this
incident, the Respondent, Mohit, while passing in front of the Complainant‟s
residence, his bike‟s handle struck the Complainant‟s hand, leading the
Complainant to threaten to "teach him a lesson." This specific prior incident,
however, was denied by the Complainant.
31. The testimony of PW-2 was corroborated by his brother, PW-3,
Virender Singh who also deposed that on 16.02.2014, between 04:00 and
05:00 p.m., while returning from a walk near Gas Godown, he saw four boys
beating his brother, Jai Singh. Upon shouting at the boys, he too was
attacked with bricks and dandas, resulting in an injury on his left ear, which
left him stunned. The Respondents then ran away. He saw his brother lying
on the road in a pool of blood; he lifted him, and called the PCR. They were
taken to DDU Hospital for treatment and discharged the same day.
32. In his cross-examination, PW-3 clarified that his brother, Jai Singh,
was beaten by the accused persons in his presence, and he was hit on the ear
when he tried to intervene and save his brother.
Contradictions and Corroboration:
Timing and the happening of Incident:
33. The first material contradiction in the testimony of both PW-2 and
PW-3, which weighed with the Ld. ASJ, was regarding the time of the
incident. PW-2 stated in cross-examination that the incident occurred around
06:15 PM while PW-3, Mr. Virender Singh, mentioned the time as between
04:00 to 05:00 p.m. The Rukka, Ex.PW5/A, however, recorded the time as
05:40 p.m. The learned ASJ deemed the timing as a material contradiction.
34. However, it is significant to observe that the incident admittedly
happened in the evening hours on 16.02.2014. The timeframe of 04:00 p.m.
to 06:15 p.m. provided by the witnesses is somewhat similar, centring
around 05:00 p.m. to 06:00 p.m. It cannot be overlooked that the incident
occurred in February 2014 while the witnesses deposed on 17.01.2018; a
memory lapse is bound to occur. In fact, this slight variation in timing might
reflect the authenticity and genuineness of their testimony; had they been
tutored, they would have given the time with exact precision.
35. Crucially, the Rukka, Ex. PW5/A, prepared soon after the incident,
recorded the time as 05:40 p.m. This is further corroborated by the MLC of
Virender Singh Ex.PW-6/A, which records the injured being brought by
PCR at about 06:30 p.m. Similarly, the MLC of the Complainant, Jai Singh
Ex.PW-11/A, gives the time as 06:50 p.m. The documents prepared soon
after the incident clearly support the time of the incident as 05:40 p.m. on
16.02.2014. Therefore, there were no material contradictions in the time of
the incident, contrary to the learned ASJ‟s observation.
36. The second aspect is whether there are material contradictions in the
testimony regarding the assault on the two injured. While PW-2 stated in his
cross-examination that his brother, Virender Singh, was not beaten in his
presence, while PW-3, Virender Singh, deposed that upon seeing his brother
being beaten, he went to the spot where he also got beaten up by the
Respondents. When these two statements are read together, the sequence of
events becomes clear; the Complainant was beaten first, and thereafter,
Virender Singh, having seen or being told about the incident, rushed to the
spot, where he was also assaulted by the Respondents. There is no inherent
contradiction in their testimonies.
37. Furthermore, the happening of the incident is corroborated by the
MLCs, Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-11/A, of Virender Singh and Jai Singh,
respectively, which were prepared between 06:32 p.m. and 06:50 p.m. and
recorded a history of assault.
38. Moreover, PW-5/Head Constable Sukhwant, the initial Investigating
Officer, deposed that he received information around 06:00 p.m. on which
DD No. 30A was recorded, regarding a quarrel near Gas Godown, Naraina
Vihar. He and Constable Shashi reached the spot, but were informed that the
injured had been taken to DDU Hospital. They proceeded to the hospital and
collected the MLCs, as the injured had already been discharged.
39. This testimony is fully corroborated by PW-7, Constable Shashi, who
accompanied PW-5/and deposed that they reached DDU Hospital between
07:00 p.m. and 07:30 p.m.
40. The happening of the quarrel is thus, proved not only from the
testimony of the two injured witnesses, PW-2 and PW-3, but is also
corroborated by the investigations undertaken immediately thereafter.
41. The learned ASJ‟s conclusion that the happening of the incident itself
was doubtful, is incorrect. Had there been no quarrel, as claimed by the
Respondents, neither the DD entries nor the MLCs would have been
recorded or prepared.
Weapon of Offence and Nature of Injuries:
42. The third aspect for consideration is the weapon of offence. As per
PW-2, the Respondent Mohit hit him on his head with a glass bottle. PW-3,
Virender Singh, asserted that he was attacked with dandas and sustained an
injury on his left ear. The testimony of these two witnesses, must be
appreciated in light of their respective MLCs. The MLC Ex.PW-6/A of PW-
3/Virender Singh reflects a CLW over the right lobule of size $1.5 X 0.5 cm
with swelling. This is consistent with his testimony of having been hit with a
Danda. The doctor's opinion also states the injury was caused by a blunt
object and was certified as 'simple'. Merely because the danda was not
recovered from the spot, cannot lead to an inference that it was not used or
cast doubt on the testimony of PW-3.
43. Similarly, PW-2 deposed that Mohit hit him with a glass bottle.
However, his MLC, Ex.PW-11/A reflects a CLW of 4 x 0.5 cm over the left
temporal region with swelling on the right preorbital area and an abrasion
over the left knee. The kind of weapon used is stated to be blunt, and the
injury was certified as 'simple'. The nature of the injuries reflects they were
caused by a blunt object, not a glass bottle, as claimed by the Complainant.
The testimony coupled with the MLC, also proves that he suffered a simple
injury. Though his claim of a glass bottle being used is not corroborated by
the investigation or the MLC, the evidence establishes beyond reasonable
doubt that the Respondents caused simple injury to the Complainant and his
brother.
Delay in FIR and Defence Evidence:
44. Another factor which weighed with the learned ASJ was the fact that
PW-2 failed to make a Complaint on the same day, and his statement was
recorded on the next day, i.e. 17.02.2014. The Complainant sufficiently
explained this in his testimony, stating that due to the injury, he was in
extreme pain and not in a fit state to give a statement to the Police. While
the MLC may have certified him as "fit for statement," but it cannot be
ignored that a person who has undergone the trauma of being beaten by four
individuals, may not feel mentally fit to give a statement immediately after
the incident. The Complainant giving his statement on the next day, in the
given circumstances, cannot be termed an inordinate delay or an
afterthought, to falsely implicate the Respondents especially when the
happening of incident and the consequent injuries, was proved and
corroborated by independent evidence as well.
45. Much emphasis was also placed by the learned ASJ on the evidence
of DW-1, Pavitra Mohan, who deposed that he had a shop near the place of
the incident and did not see any quarrel take place. However, he is a defence
witness. Overwhelming evidence was collected by the Police during the
investigations, supported by the independent evidence of the MLCs, to
prove the Prosecution‟s case. This witness is an interested witness and his
testimony is not trustworthy and cannot inure to the benefit of the
Respondents, given that the Prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
46. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Respondents that the
falsity of the Complainant‟s allegations is evident from the fact that the
allegations of theft of a gold chain, ring, and money were found to be false
during the investigations, which casts a doubt on the entire statements of the
two witnesses. It is admitted that the Respondents lived in the same area and
were known to the Complainant and his brother. It is also not disputed that
there had been a prior altercation with the Respondent Mohit. The
Complainant may have added some exaggeration in his Complaint, but this
does not render the entire Statement doubtful, especially when it stands
corroborated by independent investigations.
Conclusion:
47. It is hereby, concluded that the incident of quarrel and of the
Complainant and his brother having been inflicted with simple injuries by
the Respondents in furtherance of common intention, stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
48. The impugned Judgment dated 07.09.2018 is hereby set-aside.
49. The Respondents are convicted for the offence under Section 323/34
IPC.
50. Be listed for Sentencing on 13.11.2025
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 27, 2025/RS
